Disclaimer: I don't use or care about zooms, so I'm not commenting on their quality here.
Canon RF and Fuji X shooter here. I'm contemplating replacing my RF system with GFX. I don't do action or wildlife and only ever use AF-S anyway, so bad medium format autofocus is not a concern for me. Don't need compact street/travel lenses either as I have my X system for that. When I bring my bulky RF L primes, I only care about image quality, which is why GFX seems like a logical next step. We're talking fine art, portrait and macro here.
So, I rented a GFX 100II with 55/1.7, 80/1.7 and 110/2.0. Those focal lengths suit me, as a starting kit. The test did not go well.
The 80/1.7 is optically subpar to the point I wouldn't even consider it.
The 55/1.7 is a lot better than that, but still disappointing. Corner performance at f/1.7 is mediocre, only gets excellent at 2.8 and narrower. There's also a coma problem -- wouldn't use that lens for nighttime photography.
The 110/2 is the only top-tier lens here. It can replace my RF 85/1.2 in most cases.
Looking at the lens lineup, all the other primes are too slow for my use case. Appreciate they're meant to be smaller and cheaper, but I'm not looking for EDC glass in a medium format system. And here's the thing... the faults I pointed out in the 55 and 80 would be fine in compact glass, but those two are not that. Their heft, price and aperture puts them in the same category as the Canon and Nikon 1.2 glass. They don't live up to it, optically.
Then we come to macro. How is there no 1:1 lens in GFX? (No, I'm not ruining my quality and diffraction limit with extension tubes).
If you ask a chatbot like ChatGPT to compile a summary of the reviews of these lenses, you will find that by pretty much all accounts, both the 80 f1.7 and 55 f1.7 are optically excellent. One reviewer even compared the 80 1.7 favorably to the 110 f2.
So I don't know why they didn't work for you. The chances that you got 1 bad lens are slim, and even slimmer that you got 2 bad lenses.
Not sure how you could compare them to Nikon or Canon RF lenses because it's medium format vs. full-frame, and 100 megapixels vs. considerably less than that (45 megapixels?).
Hasselblad is another brand you could consider but the cost is considerably steeper than Fuji.
I don't think I've ever seen the corners in focus on the 55 when shooting at 1.7 and hard to imagine when that would be the case. To me the 55/1.7 is a beautiful lens so I can't relate to your issues. The lens line is not really complete, there is a whole thread/wish list on here about that. Many of us adapt other lenses and have good success with doing so.
Counterpoint: the 80/1.7 is one of my favorite portrait lenses. It is technically not perfect (maybe even subpar) but that's what makes it a great portrait lens. I don't usually use it at 1.7, though, as I think the super-shallow depth of field look is overrated. The 110 is technically better.
All in my opinion, of course.
Evection wrote:
Disclaimer: I don't use or care about zooms, so I'm not commenting on their quality here.
Canon RF and Fuji X shooter here. I'm contemplating replacing my RF system with GFX. I don't do action or wildlife and only ever use AF-S anyway, so bad medium format autofocus is not a concern for me. Don't need compact street/travel lenses either as I have my X system for that. When I bring my bulky RF L primes, I only care about image quality, which is why GFX seems like a logical next step. We're talking fine art, portrait and macro here.
So, I rented a GFX 100II with 55/1.7, 80/1.7 and 110/2.0. Those focal lengths suit me, as a starting kit. The test did not go well.
The 80/1.7 is optically subpar to the point I wouldn't even consider it.
The 55/1.7 is a lot better than that, but still disappointing. Corner performance at f/1.7 is mediocre, only gets excellent at 2.8 and narrower. There's also a coma problem -- wouldn't use that lens for nighttime photography.
The 110/2 is the only top-tier lens here. It can replace my RF 85/1.2 in most cases.
Looking at the lens lineup, all the other primes are too slow for my use case. Appreciate they're meant to be smaller and cheaper, but I'm not looking for EDC glass in a medium format system. And here's the thing... the faults I pointed out in the 55 and 80 would be fine in compact glass, but those two are not that. Their heft, price and aperture puts them in the same category as the Canon and Nikon 1.2 glass. They don't live up to it, optically.
Then we come to macro. How is there no 1:1 lens in GFX? (No, I'm not ruining my quality and diffraction limit with extension tubes)....Show more →
Corner performance at f/1.7? Did I read that right?
Lenses like the RF 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 don't start getting sharp in the corners at infinity until at least f/2, so expect f/2.8-f/4 to be the 44x33 equivalent there. Shoot the Fujifilm GF primes for their character of the lenses wide open, not the corner IQ wide open (except the 110 where you can expect more). Stopped down to f/5.6, which is at least where you'd be for landscape, they are superb.
That said, the best RF portrait primes are in a class of their own. The only GFs in that class (IMO) are the 110, 120, and 250.
The 1.2 primes on full frame are so good that medium format is largely pointless unless you just happen to enjoy it more. They have better AF and sometimes even MORE bokeh (my Z 85/1.2 certainly does compared to the GF110).
The 55 is fantastic and I had no qualms about its IQ. In fact, I would say it was one of the finest prime lenses in terms of output I've ever owned.
If you have an issue with GFX and their glass, Hasselblad is NOT the next step
highdesertmesa wrote:
Corner performance at f/1.7? Did I read that right?
Lenses like the RF 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 don't start getting sharp in the corners at infinity until at least f/2, so expect f/2.8-f/4 to be the 44x33 equivalent there. Shoot the Fujifilm GF primes for their character of the lenses wide open, not the corner IQ wide open (except the 110 where you can expect more). Stopped down to f/5.6, which is at least where you'd be for landscape, they are superb.
That said, the best RF portrait primes are in a class of their own. The only GFs in that class (IMO) are the 110, 120, and 250....Show more →
RE: Corner performance at f/1.7: Obviously unimportant in portraiture, but as stated, I also do fine art. I often shoot flat planes with little to no internal distances/focus falloff. 1.7 isn't just about bokeh, as far as I'm concerned. When in comes to that, a lot of my pictures are both wide-open and largely in acceptable focus. So yes, I'm very aware of corner sharpness.
Admittedly, I'm not focusing at infinity there, which may explain the difference in performance we observe. But I can vouch that RF 50/1.2, 85/1.2 and 135/1.8 have much better corner performance wide-open than the 55. (Technically, the Canon's do benefit from stopping down, but the improvement is miniscule. 95% of the performance is already achieved at max aperture).
Your last paragraph tells me we're mostly in agreement. Need to test that 120 (somehow missed it). 250 is a bit too narrow for me, though.
RoamingScott wrote:
The 1.2 primes on full frame are so good that medium format is largely pointless unless you just happen to enjoy it more. They have better AF and sometimes even MORE bokeh (my Z 85/1.2 certainly does compared to the GF110)
My brief test seems to confirm this. Really wanted to get into MF for the narrower DF in wide angles, but the slower apertures largely negate that, and the optics are mostly inferior. (On that note, agree to disagree about the 55/1.7. Not saying it's bad, obviously, but it is noticeably less good than the FF 1.2 glass).
Evection wrote:
My brief test seems to confirm this. Really wanted to get into MF for the narrower DF in wide angles, but the slower apertures largely negate that, and the optics are mostly inferior. (On that note, agree to disagree about the 55/1.7. Not saying it's bad, obviously, but it is noticeably less good than the FF 1.2 glass).
The 55 is wholly unique, in that it has a vintage style render and medium format separation. You're comparing it to extremely clinical FF glass.
If you like the look of the 55 images, there is simply nothing else like it on the market.
I have shot many dozens of top-tier lenses over the years. I have developed a rigorous testing procedure that I put them all through. The GF 55mm f1.7 is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever shot and find it to be amazing, overall!! Of course, bad copies of nearly all lenses exist.
The GF 80mm f1.7 was never quite as good as the 55mm and focus was not always perfect on the GFX 100S II, so I sold it.
mranger211 wrote:
Counterpoint: the 80/1.7 is one of my favorite portrait lenses. It is technically not perfect (maybe even subpar) but that's what makes it a great portrait lens. I don't usually use it at 1.7, though, as I think the super-shallow depth of field look is overrated. The 110 is technically better.
All in my opinion, of course.
Can't counter that: if you (and your clients) like the results, it works. Objectively.
Still, I refuse to use bad optics for flattering portraiture and "character". Sure, I've had to use negative microcontrast and blur in post-processing. That being said, a technically perfect lens allows me to choose the softening; where and how much, exactly. I get to be very selective about it. The mediocre optic, I can't really control.
Two opposing mindsets, I suppose. I know people who still prefer the EF 50/1.2 over the RF 50/1.2 for precisely the same reason. Don't understand it, but if it works - more power to them.
Evection wrote:
Can't counter that: if you (and your clients) like the results, it works. Objectively.
Still, I refuse to use bad optics for flattering portraiture and "character". Sure, I've had to use negative microcontrast and blur in post-processing. That being said, a technically perfect lens allows me to choose the softening; where and how much, exactly. I get to be very selective about it. The mediocre optic, I can't really control.
Two opposing mindsets, I suppose. I know people who still prefer the EF 50/1.2 over the RF 50/1.2 for precisely the same reason. Don't understand it, but if it works - more power to them. ...Show more →
You are confusing "good" vs "bad" with "character" vs "clinical". Neither are good OR bad, they are merely different.
No, GFX primes are NOT clinical, by and large, but their zooms tend to be. The 50/3.5 is.
Evection wrote:
Can't counter that: if you (and your clients) like the results, it works. Objectively.
Still, I refuse to use bad optics for flattering portraiture and "character". Sure, I've had to use negative microcontrast and blur in post-processing. That being said, a technically perfect lens allows me to choose the softening; where and how much, exactly. I get to be very selective about it. The mediocre optic, I can't really control.
Two opposing mindsets, I suppose. I know people who still prefer the EF 50/1.2 over the RF 50/1.2 for precisely the same reason. Don't understand it, but if it works - more power to them. ...Show more →
Different mindsets, absolutely. I like lenses that are not clinical, and have some technical imperfections. Not sure I would call that "bad", but then it is all a matter of definitions. My favorite portrait lens is the Contarex 85mm, which tells you all about my preferences. I am also not convinced that you can easily create the character of a lens in postprocessing, but I am no expert in this at all.
In the end, different systems work for different people. Nothing wrong about that.
+1 to different mindsets/terminology. It comes down to what you value (clinical perfection vs character and learning to work with imperfections for that look). Perhaps the op had a bad copy of the 80/1.7 but "bad optics" ? The 80/1.7 is one of my most used lenses and I really like the look it gives me. My copy is very sharp. Would be great to see what the op has with the canikon 1.2s. Would gladly put images I took with the "subpar" 80/1.7 against any of those and let your eyes be the judge.
The Nikon 58g is another character lens. It wont win clinical sharpness and spec contests but if you know how to work with it, it rewards with amazing images that none of the newer glass can quite match. The 58g also works great on the gfx btw. But again, we all see differently. Different strokes for different folks.
It seems I have steered the discussion into yet another "clinical vs character" debate. Wasn't my intention. It's obvious I'm firmly on the side of "clinical", but the argument is useless -- both work in different styles, that's a matter of sensibility and ideally, a camera system would support both in its lens choice.
The point is, my style is clinical and I tried to recreate it in GFX. Presupposed it would work since MF is famous for its resolution. Didn't work out. Asked here to check whether I'm missing something -- I wasn't. Conclusion --FF 35mm is better for photographers like me. That's fine. I'm not interested in changing anyone's views.
P.S. The lack of 1:1 lens is still unacceptable, though, however you look at it. Fuji needs to get on that.
Evection wrote:
It seems I have steered the discussion into yet another "clinical vs character" debate. Wasn't my intention. It's obvious I'm firmly on the side of "clinical", but the argument is useless -- both work in different styles, that's a matter of sensibility and ideally, a camera system would support both in its lens choice.
The point is, my style is clinical and I tried to recreate it in GFX. Presupposed it would work since MF is famous for its resolution. Didn't work out. Asked here to check whether I'm missing something -- I wasn't. Conclusion --FF 35mm is better for photographers like me. That's fine. I'm not interested in changing anyone's views.
P.S. The lack of 1:1 lens is still unacceptable, though, however you look at it. Fuji needs to get on that....Show more →
Complaints about no 1:1 macro GF lens started in 2017 with the release of the 120. Macro shooters have moved on or never moved over in the first place.
Evection wrote:
Can't counter that: if you (and your clients) like the results, it works. Objectively.
Still, I refuse to use bad optics for flattering portraiture and "character". Sure, I've had to use negative microcontrast and blur in post-processing. That being said, a technically perfect lens allows me to choose the softening; where and how much, exactly. I get to be very selective about it. The mediocre optic, I can't really control.
Two opposing mindsets, I suppose. I know people who still prefer the EF 50/1.2 over the RF 50/1.2 for precisely the same reason. Don't understand it, but if it works - more power to them. ...Show more →
The RF 50 and 85 1.2 do have character, though, especially if shooting busy backgrounds at medium distances. They just also happen to be Otus-level sharp by f/2.
If you are comparing 100mp vs 45mp images at 100 per cent then it is an apples to oranges comparison.
While MF is famous for its resolution, that is mostly pushed by reviewers who need to attract attention by saying every latest thing is better than everything else. While the difference is there, I wouldn't regard it as huge. One of my largest prints was made from a 24mp Sony and ancient Canon FD 20mm f2.8.
While the GFX generally does better, you have to get pretty close to see the difference and know what to look for.
The size jump from FF to digital MF is a lot smaller than from 35mm to 645, and FF digital is already more than sufficient for quite large prints.
Geoff D F wrote:
If you are comparing 100mp vs 45mp images at 100 per cent then it is an apples to oranges comparison.
While MF is famous for its resolution, that is mostly pushed by reviewers who need to attract attention by saying every latest thing is better than everything else. While the difference is there, I wouldn't regard it as huge. One of my largest prints was made from a 24mp Sony and ancient Canon FD 20mm f2.8.
While the GFX generally does better, you have to get pretty close to see the difference and know what to look for.
The size jump from FF to digital MF is a lot smaller than from 35mm to 645, and FF digital is already more than sufficient for quite large prints....Show more →
I should preface this by mentioning I'm what you'd call a "pixel-peeper".
Large prints are easier than their reputation suggests. I've made and sold them with a Canon 2000D + EF 50/1.8 (back when I was starting out and didn't have any money). 24mp as well, but with dynamic range from hell (forget about ISO above 400) and atrocious optics (that double-gauze design should only ever be used at f/4 and narrower).
I made it work, as long as I was out under the sun. Clients liked it; I didn't. A successful sale is supposed to be a celebration, but honestly, I looked at my work somewhat ashamed. Point is, most clients are not pixel-peepers, they have low standards and large prints are usually looked at from afar (many billboards are really 4-5mp). However, if you care about your work, you stare at it, you have higher requirements. "One's worst critic", etc.
I care about resolution as long as the lenses can fully resolve it (2 out 3 GFX lenses I tested failed that test wide open. The 55 can also resolve it, but only stopped down to 2.8. The 80 is below my current standards, even though it's more than sufficient for a lot of commercial work).
